Calimutan vs People “stoned to death” homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

C and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Instead, this Court finds

Facts:
On 04 February 1996, at around 10:00 a.m., the victim Cantre and witness Sañano,
together with two other companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar in Aroroy, Masbate.
From the videoke bar, the victim Cantre and witness Sañano proceeded to go home to their
respective houses, but along the way, they crossed paths with petitioner Calimutan and a certain
Michael Bulalacao. Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge against Bulalacao, suspecting the latter
as the culprit responsible for throwing stones at the Cantre's house on a previous night. Thus,
upon seeing Bulalacao, victim Cantre suddenly punched him. While Bulalacao ran away, petitioner
Calimutan dashed towards the backs of victim Cantre and witness Sañano. Petitioner Calimutan
then picked up a stone, as big as a man's fist, which he threw at victim Cantre, hitting him at the
left side of his back. When hit by the stone, victim Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back.
Witness Sañano put himself between the victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan, and attempted
to pacify the two, even convincing petitioner Calimutan to put down another stone he was already
holding. He also urged victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan to just go home. Witness Sañano
accompanied victim Cantre to the latter's house, and on the way, victim Cantre complained of the
pain in the left side of his back hit by the stone.
petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals was MODIFIED. Petitioner Calimutan is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Notes:
 Calimutan. Proximate cause has been defined as "that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have occurred."
 Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do
an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

They arrived at the Cantre's house at around 12:00 noon, and witness Sañano left victim
Cantre to the care of the latter's mother, Belen.[8] Victim Cantre immediately told his mother,
Belen, of the stoning incident involving petitioner Calimutan. He again complained of backache
and also of stomachache, and was unable to eat. Later that day, he died.

The Post-Mortem Examination Report[10] and Certification of Death,[11] issued and

signed by Dr. Ulanday, stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was cardio-respiratory
arrest due to suspected food poisoning. However, on the report of Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez he
found out that the death was due to TRAUMATIC INJURY OF THE ABDOMEN.

Petitioner Rollie Calimutan prays for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in affirming the Decision of RTC finding petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide.

Petitioner contends that there was reasonable doubt since the 2 medical officers had
conflicting views on the cause of Cantre’s death.

Issue: whether or not calimutan is guilty of homicide

Held:
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to the means by which they are
committed, in particular: (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies.
1. intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the language of
Art. 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in
performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another.
2. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury
caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being simply the incident
of another act performed without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). As stated in
Art. 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.

In the Petition at bar, this Court cannot, in good conscience, attribute to petitioner Calimutan any
malicious intent to injure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre; and in the absence of such intent,
this Court cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan for the intentional crime of
.